Just to clear things up raytracing is used for a lot of stuff....
Collision detection,Ai what ever needs a distance and a direction it will probably use some form of raytracing.
It's even used for audio.
Just to clear things up raytracing is used for a lot of stuff....
Collision detection,Ai what ever needs a distance and a direction it will probably use some form of raytracing.
Yeah but would that cause very noticeable transations in things like entering/exiting tunnel? It's something you don't see in GT5.
Yeah but would that cause very noticeable transations in things like entering/exiting tunnel? It's something you don't see in GT5.
I want to see the reflection of my car as I drive up behind another car in GT6/Forza5 etc
SMAA T2x or SMAA 4x. There is no better AA right now, in terms of IQ/performance ratio.2xAA on 1080p is acceptable though, as long as we never see 0AA games ever again I will be happy.
Its the same technique, although in Killzone SF precision is lower, but they cover reflections from greater distance. In CE 3 You can modify it greatly, but in C3 for example it doesnt reflect smoke, while in KZ SF it does, also roughness is considered in different way, because of different lighting model and texture structure.I'd really like somebody who has deeper understanding of the tech to explain differences between their approach and what's in CryEngine 3. For my layman eyes (and brain...) it is strikingly similar. I also re-watched the game-play demos and indeed started to noticing how what they described looks on screen. I can imagine it only gets better while you actually play it, because it gets 'interactive'
Not going to happen soon and if it does somehow, it will be faked as hell.
---
SMAA T2x or SMAA 4x. There is no better AA right now, in terms of IQ/performance ratio.
---
Its the same technique, although in Killzone SF precision is lower, but they cover reflections from greater distance.
no. It does not make sense given the technique how one screenspace reflection will reflect in another. But what does make sense.. is what he says about GI reflection bounce being a part of the reflection. the SSr is done after everyother screenpass (excluding the cubemaps).
He mentions that GI bonces are in reflections.
Those are technically reflections... but not anything like glossy reflections.
Can we please get a change of thread title? It is... more than inaccurate.
Its the same technique, although in Killzone SF precision is lower, but they cover reflections from greater distance. In CE 3 You can modify it greatly, but in C3 for example it doesnt reflect smoke, while in KZ SF it does, also roughness is considered in different way, because of different lighting model and texture structure.
Not going to happen soon and if it does somehow, it will be faked as hell.
Faking that example specifically should be pretty easy actually, just take a flat image of the car from the front and project that onto the scene somehow. But not many cars, especially sports cars have the kind of vertical backs where that would be noticable anyway.
No, he specifically says it can do more than one bounce. Listen to the whole video, especially near the end. I don't think it's just using GI for reflections. He specifically says reflections are not done after every other screen pass, too...
It sounds like they can specify certain elements (???) for real time ray traces because he does specifically mention bounces off of bounces, but it is tiered all the way down to static skybox 'reflections'.
Even RAM speed isnt relevant for SSR.
--
Yes, glossy reflections [sun light reflections], but those reflections on buildings are pure cubemaps, which You can even see on the presentation when they compare buffer with cubemaps to buffer with cubemaps and SSR
---
FULL Presentation has been uploaded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?annota...&feature=iv&src_vid=DDYVcQNgu4Y&v=_29M8F-sRsU
I liked the AA in Crysis 2, it gave the game a blurry CG look. So much cleaner than Crysis 3
Ps. I've checked Crysis 3 and damn area lights seems to be cheap, in Dam level almost all are Area based. Sometimes You see 12-14 of them on screen all casting penumbra shadows.
Every light here is Area Light - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIoUelM-4pk&feature=player_detailpage#t=1759s
In the first level the situation is even more clear due a lot of rectangle shaped light with rounded specular.
Uhm...i'm not sure about that.
I've seen their video about area lights but i think that this feature is not diffuse at all in the final game.
Watch this, the specular reflection show that it's not an area light:
Even these doesn't look like area like at all:
In the first level the situation is even more clean due a lot of rectangle shaped light with rounded specular.
About the penumbra shadows i think that if they want every light source can cast them, area lights or not.
By the way... replayed the dam level ...it's so great! Killzone will have hard time to impress me more
Turn on Screen-space reflections and look at reflection shape.
Also both mentioned by You cast penumbra shadows that cant be cast by point lights.
We are talking about CryEngine 3.5 and it doesnt allow for penumbra shadows for point lights.The lights in those screen shots are clearly not area lights. Screen space reflections won't actually tell you anything about that and you can cast shadows with penumbra even with fake area lights.
An example: PCSS
We are talking about CryEngine 3.5 and it doesnt allow for penumbra shadows for point lights.
Also in this presentation he's talking about Area Light from this location and its the same ingame
http://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...vHel7PL8&list=FLLvq9KX4OlKxx5vA-DX3UqQ#t=729s
Unfortunately You cant get to it with Prophet, because of stairs, but if two lights behind stairs are Area Lights, why rest arent?
We are talking about CryEngine 3.5 and it doesnt allow for penumbra shadows for point lights.
Also in this presentation Crytek is talking about Area Light from this location and its the same ingame
http://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...vHel7PL8&list=FLLvq9KX4OlKxx5vA-DX3UqQ#t=729s
Unfortunately You cant get to it with Prophet, because of stairs, but if two lights behind stairs are Area Lights, why rest arent?
Also smoke shows volume of lights all the time there.
Eh why havent they still released CE 3.5 SDK? ;\
Looks like they can have penumbra shadows without area lights: click
It's exactly for the CE3 area lights that i've some doubt about the "all lights are area lights" from Guerrilla, even Crytek seems unable to do something like that ...but maybe it's just a matter of time needed to implement it in the PC version due to PS360.
Chill out, they've not said they won't - it's kind of given considering the GPU that they'll have good AF.
No, I won't "chill out".
I have no beef with GG in particular, and maybe they will add it. My point was, there is no reason it couldn't have been standard for every single xbox 360/PS3 game. Let alone next gen.
There is a lot of misinformation in this thread. The presenters and the videos are pretty misleading on how things work.
I'd like to address the ray-marching vs. ray-tracing terms. Ray marching is visiting several points (in gaming case, it would be pixels in 2D image) along the direction of the vector and getting information at each point (Ie. Color, opacity, etc..). The points are called samples. Raymarching in 2D space is very limited and a rough approximation to the integral of solving the rendering equation.
Raytracing is the process of computing a vector (with an origin point) and testing it against triangles in the scene to see if it intersects this ray. Both techniques can be pretty expensive but it depends on the context. Raytracing would be a bottleneck on GPUs as opposed to raymarching in 2D space because you'd need a lot of memory to store the entire scene of triangles into a fast data structure so that the intersection tests won't take so long. However, in film, it would take much longer to raymarch a true 3D volume if the number of samples need to be high enough to get a good approximation of an affect.
Area lights - I've not seen a game yet that can implement area lights. Crysis 3 tech demo had it in there, but unfortunately, it wasn't in the game. I am assuming it's as hard as it is for even the film industry. You have to literally sample (Ie. Ray-trace) the light's area and recompute the BRDF for each sample. Then you have to sample the surface BRDF the same number of times. This is called "Importance Sampling". I don't expect to see this kind of high quality physically based rendering for several years. You can always tell a true sample of area lights on a surface when the specular highlight shape is exactly the shape of the light - not circular.
-M
did you watch the GG presentation?
did you watch the GG presentation?
You can see it in action in DeadSpace 3 PC (don't think console ones have it) - they do the blend of baked&realtime as well, and as mentioned it really grounds the scene - but you need to see it in motion to fully appreciate it.Perkel said:Effect imo is amazing considering it is not full real time sollution.
GT5 CAR-cubemaps are dynamically rendered every frame - as they have been in virtually every racing game for the past 12 years or so, starting with PS2 ones.Metalmurphy said:Cubemaps reflecting all the environment including track detail, tunnels , etc?
Area lights - I've not seen a game yet that can implement area lights. Crysis 3 tech demo had it in there, but unfortunately, it wasn't in the game. I am assuming it's as hard as it is for even the film industry. You have to literally sample (Ie. Ray-trace) the light's area and recompute the BRDF for each sample. Then you have to sample the surface BRDF the same number of times. This is called "Importance Sampling". I don't expect to see this kind of high quality physically based rendering for several years. You can always tell a true sample of area lights on a surface when the specular highlight shape is exactly the shape of the light - not circular.
-M
You need light size/area information to calculate the penumbra, but does not mean the area and shape are used for the diffuse and specular calculations as well. Various games have used penumbra shadows without any support for area lights.
Maybe CryEngine allows you to turn the more costly part on and off on certain lights while keeping the shadows, or they disable certain area lights depending on graphics settings, I don't have any experience with it to know.
But if you look at the video you linked, the "wrong" light he shows first behaves just like the ones on the screenshots.
Note: I'm not trying to start a Killzone vs Crysis fight here. CryEngine is awesome, I'm just commenting on those shots
Thats for sun/moon light only, we are talking about additional lights in levels.Looks like they can have penumbra shadows without area lights: click
They did say at presentation that their area light are 50% more expensive
Area lights - I've not seen a game yet that can implement area lights. Crysis 3 tech demo had it in there, but unfortunately, it wasn't in the game.
No, I won't "chill out".
Yeah, they said 15%. Which, as he said, was very well worth it. Sometimes you need multiple point lights to basically act as what 1 area light would be.Wasnt thay 15-20% more?
Wasnt thay 15-20% more?
Those two lights are confirmed by Crytek's guy to be Area Lights. So yes, they are ingame.
Now question is different, why lights that most of people wont even notice are Area Lights and other as You think arent?
LOL! That's not the true definition of an area light in the conventional sense. They are using an implied rectangular shape. I'm not sure how they are implementing it internally but I know they are not sampling the surface of the light. And I don't see any soft shadows from the area light either.
Squares, Rectangles, Cones, Cylinders and Spheres can be computed procedurally.
Let's see an area light that represents a piece of geometry like a character, or a tree, or a irregularly shape boulder, or a ship.
LOL! That's not the true definition of an area light in the conventional sense. They are using an implied rectangular shape. I'm not sure how they are implementing it internally but I know they are not sampling the surface of the light. And I don't see any soft shadows from the area light either.
Squares, Rectangles, Cones, Cylinders and Spheres can be computed procedurally.
Let's see an area light that represents a piece of geometry like a character, or a tree, or a irregularly shape boulder, or a ship.
They cant be too expensive if they are using so many of them in a scene.
Watch the video ...
---
Also slides from AMD Ruby presentation based on CE 3.5. In third slide AMD mixed up shots, but You get an idea.
They cant be too expensive if they are using so many of them in a scene.
What's the point? Really? Even if there was a lighting shining through an oddly shaped hole in the wall, the shape of the light will be affected by the wall, regardless of the shape of the source.
Watch the video ...
---
Also slides from AMD Ruby presentation based on CE 3.5. In third slide AMD mixed up shots, but You get an idea.
They cant be too expensive if they are using so many of them in a scene.
You can't have texture reflection (which is basically the specular highlight) and call it real area lights.
That is a real area light:
Notice the noise in the shadowed areas and the reflection (i.e. the angle between the light and the surface reflection vector are parallel = max) shape. This is all done in the BRDF, not in texture space where you can look up a pre-rendered image and comp it into the specular lighting pass. There are no discrete reflections in this shot because there is no wetness on the wood floor - which makes sense because the floor has a very rough surface (not too rough that the specular highlight fades into diffuse).
Also take note in that second image from ATI.. it looks wrong. The pillar shadows still look too well defined instead of blurred along the entire edges all the way around. This indicates to me that they are not using importance sampling.
One last point I'd like to bring up.
The only way to prove for sure that these are real area lights is to see the lights move in realtime. Most of these games are using static lights on static objects. They could be pre-baked.
Also, it would be very easy to mimic area lights with creating several point lights all in an array. Like this:
****
****
****
****
I just made a rectangular area light with 16 point lights.
In the conventional sense, this is not a true area light...
-M
What are You debating now? That its not precise enough? Its not simple texture overlay, as shown on those slides or here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il8T...xx5vA-DX3UqQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=115s
You have light distribution from area, not from a point, so it is area light. What else do You need? That is not as precise as ray-traced light? Sure as hell it wont be, its made for real-time.
One last point I'd like to bring up.
The only way to prove for sure that these are real area lights is to see the lights move in realtime. Most of these games are using static lights on static objects. They could be pre-baked.
Also, it would be very easy to mimic area lights with creating several point lights all in an array. Like this:
****
****
****
****
I just made a rectangular area light with 16 point lights.
In the conventional sense, this is not a true area light...
-M
What are You debating now? That its not precise enough? Its not simple texture overlay, as shown on those slides or here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il8T...xx5vA-DX3UqQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=115s
You have light distribution from area, not from a point, so it is area light. What else do You need? That is not as precise as ray-traced light? Sure as hell it wont be, its made for real-time.
What are You debating now? That its not precise enough? Its not simple texture overlay, as shown on those slides or here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il8T...xx5vA-DX3UqQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=115s
You have light distribution from area, not from a point, so it is area light. What else do You need? That is not as precise as ray-traced light? Sure as hell it wont be, its made for real-time.
Yeah, I'm not really understanding his argument either. The noise he mentions is because of the raytracing sample not being high enough. Not because of the BRDF, well that's my understanding when I messed with pre-rendered scenes.